The 9th Circuit ruled that the EPA violated multiple federal environmental statutes by its longstanding evasion of its statutory duty to determine whether current tolerances of chlorpyrifos are safe. Environmental Protection Agency regulate the pesticide chlorpyrifos under federal environmental laws. It's the culmination of a long-running battle by civil rights and environmental groups to have the U.S. This is both an environmental justice and public health decision - and an important, action-forcing one at that. League of United Latin American Citizens v. The Court of Appeals ruled that the industry had failed to demonstrate they would suffer irreparable harm if forced to litigate the case simultaneously in state and federal court. In the Honolulu case, a 9th Circuit panel denied defendants' motion to block the federal district court's remand of the litigation back to state court after the defendants had removed it to federal court. They seek money damages to reimburse the governments for their climate change-related response costs attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from the defendants' fossil fuel products. Originally filed in state courts, these lawsuits advance state common law theories against the fossil fuel industry. This case is one of many currently pending climate change lawsuits brought by state and local governments around the country. Instead, and in a partial victory for the public trust plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals remanded the lawsuit to federal district court, with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to pursue their public trust claims, with certain conditions. After the Nevada court answered that question in the negative and returned the case to the 9th Circuit, many observers thought that the case there was over. The 9th Circuit initially referred the dispute to the Nevada Supreme Court for a determination as to whether the public trust doctrine applies to constrain previously permitted water diversions in that state. They claimed that the diversions therefore violate the public trust doctrine. In a case whose facts closely mirror those of the California Supreme Court's iconic 1983 National Audubon Society public trust decision, Nevada local governments, Native American tribes and environmental groups argued that uncontrolled water diversions from the Walker River are destroying the ecosystem and environmental values of both the river and Walker Lake. This decision is the latest chapter in long-running federal court litigation over the Walker River–an interstate river with its source in California's Eastern Sierra that flows east into central Nevada and ultimately into Walker Lake. While the Juliana case itself is now final, its legacy remains: Related Juliana-type lawsuits remain pending in courts across the country. Of critical importance, both the majority and dissenting opinions agreed that climate change is real and poses an existential threat to the planet.īut their disagreement over the judiciary's proper role in addressing climate change makes for compelling reading. The third panel member wrote an impassioned dissent, arguing that the children did have constitutional standing, and that their substantive claims have legal merit. greenhouse gas emissions violates the government's public trust-related obligations to future generations, as well as the plaintiffs' substantive due process rights.Ī divided three-judge panel ruled that the young plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, reversing the district court. They claimed that the government's failure to take concrete steps to reduce U.S. Unquestionably the most closely watched 9th Circuit environmental case of 2021, Juliana involved a lawsuit brought against the federal government by a group of children and their guardian ad litem (renown climate scientist James Hansen). With apologies for any perceived sins of omission, here's my chronological list of the 9th Circuit's 10 most important environmental law decisions of 2021: Juliana v. This year the 9th Circuit also maintained its role as the most prodigious source of key environmental decisions of any federal appellate court - issuing nearly one per week. Supreme Court - the most important court in the United States when it comes to environmental law. Circuit Court of Appeals remained - save only the U.S. Environmental law professor Richard Frank stands beside a redwood tree in the UC Davis Arboretum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |